Disposition that confirms the recipient of subsidies for rice direct payments and excludes the reduction or exemption of self-farmland for eight years;

It is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s punishment was paid for farmland, and it is not recognized that the Plaintiff’s punishment was insignificant.

Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act: Capital gains tax reduction or exemption for self-farmland

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendant’s disposition of imposition of KRW 36,203,150 (the complaint is KRW 36,203,00,000) for the Plaintiff on September 5, 2006, is revoked.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On May 21, 1993, the Plaintiff: (a) sold 1,470 square meters of land (for each of the above farmland was merged on October 21, 2002; hereinafter referred to as “the instant farmland”) to ○○○○○○, ○○-si, ○○○○○○, ○○-do, 250-164, 1,998 square meters and 250-1,470 square meters of land (for each of the above farmland, it was merged on October 21, 2002; hereinafter referred to as “the instant farmland”); and (b) filed an application for reduction or exemption of capital gains tax pursuant to Article 69 of the Restriction of Special Taxation Act on the ground that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the instant land for eight or more years, while filing

B. On September 5, 2006, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition imposing capital gains tax of KRW 36,203,150 on the ground that the Plaintiff did not directly cultivate the instant farmland in light of the fact that the Plaintiff continued to work in the ○○ Construction Office, etc. from around 1996 to the date of the transfer of the instant farmland, and that the Plaintiff received subsidies for rice direct payments that only the actual cultivator could receive, and that the Plaintiff received.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 22-1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Related statutes;

Maf06e Restriction of Special Taxation

Article 69 (Abatement or Exemption of Transfer Income Tax for Self-Cultivating Farmland)

(1) With respect to the income accruing from the transfer of land prescribed by Presidential Decree among the land which is subject to the taxation of agricultural income tax (including those subject to non-taxation, reduction and exemption, and small collection), which is cultivated directly by the resident prescribed by Presidential Decree residing in the location of such land for not less than eight years, the tax amount equivalent to 100/100 of the transfer income tax shall be reduced

3. Determination

가. 원고는 주식회사 ○○건축사사무소, 주식회사 ○○산업개발에서 근무하면서 틈틈이 시간을 내어 다른 형제들과 함께 이 사건 농지를 경작하여 왔고, 원고의 형들이 이 사건 농지에 대한 농농업직접지불보조금을 수령한 것은 원고의 형으로서 원고를 대신하여 지급받은 것에 불과하므로, 원고가 이 사건 농지를 직접 경작하지 않았음을 이유로 한 이 사건 처분은 위법하다고 주장한다.

B. The following circumstances are established based on Gap evidence Nos. 8, Gap 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 23, which correspond to the fact that the plaintiff directly cultivated the farmland of this case for at least eight years prior to the date of transfer, Gap evidence Nos. 24, Gap evidence Nos. 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4-1, 4-2, Eul evidence Nos. 3-1, 4, 5-1, 2, and 3-1, 5-1, 5-1, 3-2, and each evidence Nos. 1, 1996, and 12-1, 3-2, and 15-2, which are hard to find that the plaintiff's evidence No. 1, 196-1, 3-2, and 15-1, 3-1, 3-2, and 5-1, etc. of the farmland of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.